VegetarianInBoston
Maynard S. Clark's Veggie and Boston Blog talks about vegetarian topics AND Boston-related topics, often intersecting them interestingly.
Maynard S. Clark is a long-time and well-known vegan in Greater Boston, who often quips in his 'elevator pitch':
"I've been vegan now for over half my natural life, longer than most human earthlings have been alive."

WHO IS SOUGHT: * SERIOUS nonsmoker, nondrinker graduate or undergraduate student or a working professional) * Scholarly student types are especially welcomed. * No smoking, no alcohol, and no illegal drugs are to be brought into house or onto the property. * No pets; no parties; no overnight visitors.

For the right person (such as an ESL student), this is an optimal short-term OR long-term housing situation.

WHAT IS ASKED: $600/month First and Last month's rent + key deposit + house rules acceptance in order to occupy the room].

CAVEAT: In addition to first and last months' rent and $15 key deposit (total $1115 to get set of keys), homeowner requires of tenant, in order to occupy the room:

(a) local reference (local college/university reference for students) and (b) tenant's personal signed acceptance of "House Rules" (mostly respect for others in the house, like consideration and good etiquette issues).

No open cooking in kitchen after 9 pm because this is a family's home with school-age student with 9 pm bedtime. Contact INITIALLY through e-mail or phone.

Again, ONLY full-time NON-smokers should apply to live in this room.

And quiet, quiet, quiet ... !!

For the right person (such as a serious graduate or undergraduate student), this can be an optimal short-term OR long-term quiet housing situation near the MBTA.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Higher fiber intake is associated with significantly lower risk of dying, according to a study published online this week. Researchers looked at diet records from 219,213 people who were part of the NIH (National Institutes of Health)-AARP Diet and Health Study. Those who ate the most fiber had lower risks of death from cardiovascular disease and infectious and respiratory diseases, compared with participants who ate the least. Men who ate the most fiber also had a lower risk of cancer death, compared with men who consumed the least. Women with the highest fiber intake showed a non-statistically significant lower risk of death from cancer.

Fiber is only found in foods from plants, such as beans, grains, vegetables, and fruits.

Sunday, February 06, 2011

I distinguish three (3) broad categories of vegan practice (real vegan practice, not 'pretenders' to be vegan, who may or may not be vegetarian):

* Dietary vegans (includes rawfooders involved with diet ONLY)

* Lifestyle vegans (who exclude ALL products resulting from exploitation of sentient beings in their lifestyle: clothing, food, accessories, household furnishings, medication as much as possible, etc.). These folks MAY CALL themselves 'ethical vegans' if their motivations are ethical (or altruistic), but there's much quibble room here

* Abolitionist vegans (who work for the abolition of all exploitation of sentient beings, and the abolition of all structures, industrial processes, and business or military operations that exploit animals).

I place vegans doing rescue operations in the 2nd category UNLESS they are working for structural upheaval (not merely punitive legal action for welfare violations). I do NOT believe that animal rescue operations are in themselves abolitionist actions.

These distinctions can be helpful in sorting out here folks 'are coming from' in their conversations about 'veganism' and 'vegan' this and that.

I do NOT believe that things OR food can be vegan; they MIGHT, however, be vegan-friendly. I believe that ONLY persons can be vegan by one or more of these categories.

Recently I was complimented that 'my thoughts are awesome' and that I'm doing 'awesome work'. Really, though, after my gut reaction to the compliment (one I consider to be undeserved), I had to note that, in my own self-understanding, I don't think that my thoughts are 'awesome' as much as they are conditioned by my choices to be around smart, critically-thinking, discerning, concerned, did I say SMART, well-read, accomplished, highly-disciplined, did I say VERY SMART and disciplined. Of course, I work at Harvard and treasure that opportunity, and a number of the friends and acquaintance I would like to bring closer to me are both ethical vegans and lifestyle vegans (dietary vegans who include an ethic of avoiding products of animal suffering in their lifestyles). Raw fooders (a type of dietary vegan) are interesting and, when they get good results, often quite admirable at that level. But I'm interested in the critical thinking that CAN come from disciplined, caring ETHICAL vegans.

Choosing who conditions us CAN be an ethical choice. Responsibility for what we do with our energies probably IS an ethical choice. I'm really not very good at that.

I would like to think about optimization of my energies (and others' energies) vs. ad hoc claims by others (coming from all around each of us, often with little accountability for the outcome of any 'aid' that is given to them).

Helping out nonhuman animals surely goes TO them without any sense of accountability on their part for converting our aid to them into their service to others. Humans don't show a very LARGE amount of that accountability, either, but at least we have social cultures around the world in which, occasionally, the issue is mentioned and sometimes raised to a level in public consciousness. Of course, often notions of 'accountability' are selectively applied - to highly visible persons.

Of course, I'm also interested in the SCIENCE around dietary veganism, and again, I treasure my good fortune in working with the Harvard School of Public Health. I only wish that 'professional vegetarians' and 'professional vegans' could systematically engage those resources for 'the greater good' of all.

Saturday, February 05, 2011

'In a perfect world' is often heard around here, where I am; perhaps, where you are, that phrase is also heard. Surely, we'd be literary characters in Candide if we believed our world to be 'perfect'; even many of those who claim to believe in Intelligent Design talk about a tragic flawing that occurred at some point.

Given that we PROFESS to be ethical in regard to animals, there is something about the claim that rings false when we're SO unfair in our application of that regard, based upon any animals' vulnerability to the mortal designs of converting their bodies into meat for meat-eaters.

Sociologically, I find quite interesting - distractingly interesting, - the earnest desire to walk around the moral difficulty of affirming OUR place in this tragic scheme of things while at the saem time claiming that all humans can be vegan, safely, albeit for ethical reasons.

If there's an ethical mandate to be vegan, which we can safely do, with a little forethought, support, discipline, and that ethical mandate has to do with the 'at risk' status of nonhumans who are often killed for their muscle tissues, is there any moral mandate for us to kill those animals to feed OTHER TYPES of beings who may have different physiologies (than ours) which require certain amino acids found NATURALLY only in animal tissues?

I see NO moral obligation for humans to accept that kind of role; it seems like the worst hybris to claim it.

Thursday, February 03, 2011

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Years ago, when I (started and) ran the Boston Vegetarian Society, I invited comparative anatomist, Dr. John McArdle, then Scientific Director of NEAVS, later Scientific Director of the Humane Society of the United States, to speak on the anatomical argument for vegetarianism.

So, for specific reasons, he rejected the argument IN FAVOR OF ethical arguments for vegetarianism. Ethicists like to consider the relative legitimacy of each of the arguments offered against or in favor of a point of view or course of action, and if outcomes (vegetarian practice) are to be sanctified (as consequentialists/utilitarians wish to do), then due diligence (prudential reason) brings us to seriously and systematically consider whether or not there is utility in arguments that only a few believe (e.g. how many go vegan because of 2-3 naked 20-something coeds on vegan diets, whatever their motivations?).

I want to cite a great Israeli philosopher, Dr. Nir Eyal of Harvard:

"For the consequentialist, consequences are everything - EVERYTHING!" Consequences (of a course of action/s) is the same as results or outcomes.

So, one MIGHT say that questionable arguments (or even good arguments) are 'good' (according to the consequentialists) to the extent that they effectively motivate thinking folks who consider them towards the desired or desirable actions or course/s of action. By this account, one COULD argue that faulty arguments are 'bad' or undesirable to the extent that they yield undesirable results (in motivating behaviors). Of course, should behaviors be decided on the basis of ethical arguments? What is the status of ethical arguments.

Dr. Randall Collura (PhD, Biological Anthropology, Harvard, 2006), a lifelong vegetarian (now a vegan) ALSO gives a talk on this topic and reaches conclusions like that of Dr. McArdle, that the anatomical argument for vegetarianism is invalid because it's (a) logically faulty AND (b) is contradicted by the facts (which likely were NOT evident to those who developed the argument, when it was developed). It may seem persuasive to some, but it fails falsification tests. Remember that the anatomical argument for vegetarianism is NOT an ethical argument; it is purportedly a descriptive claim about the propriety of the feasibility of nourishing ourselves on botanical foods ONLY.

The more widely held view today is (a) that we humans are omnivorous BUT (b) that we are NOT 'obligate carnivores'. We do not NEED to eat meat to survive or thrive, but we are ABLE to derive nutrients from all manner of soft tissues - from animals or from plants.

Oprah's "Vegan Challenge" special aired yesterday- and we're happy to say that it offered a very positive and inspirational look at what going vegan can do for people. Author Kathy Freston did an admirable job helping to advise the 378 Harpo staffers that signed up for the seven-day experiment (300 ultimately made it to the end) and it's wonderful to see so many considering making similar changes to their lives.

The Big Game is coming up, and some of you out there might already be scrambling for recipe ideas. Pleasing everyone food-wise on game day is hard enough as it is, but when you're aiming to cook vegan... well, it can be downright daunting. But don't you worry your eco-minded head, because we have a list of ten vegan football-food recipes that will have you doing your own touchdown dance.

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Welcome to English

Here's hoping President Obama's words today that, "This moments of volatility" must become "a moment of promise" actually comes to pass. In the meantime, here are some promising songs for a very volatile moment in world history. And here's hoping everyone in Egypt can read The Huffington Post -- or anything else they want to read-- very soon.

Here's hoping President Obama's words today that, "This moments of volatility" must become "a moment of promise" actually comes to pass. In the meantime, here are some promising songs for a very volatile moment in world history. And here's hoping everyone in Egypt can read The Huffington Post -- or anything else they want to read-- very soon.

Here's hoping President Obama's words today that, "This moments of volatility" must become "a moment of promise" actually comes to pass. In the meantime, here are some promising songs for a very volatile moment in world history. And here's hoping everyone in Egypt can read The Huffington Post -- or anything else they want to read-- very soon.

vegetarian's shared items

Some of my Favorite Blog Readers

Intense Debate Comments - Blog Stats

Maynard's Veggie and Boston Blog

Facebook Badge

About Me

In past three years, I completed REACH Intermediate (Harvard), Research Administration (Emmanuel College RAC/GCRA), NIH rDNA, and RTP (HSPH) Certificates. Completing Capstone research and thesis after two years of graduate courses for Master of Science in Management (MSM in Research Administration) in Boston's Emmanuel College. Have been working at Harvard for a VERY long time - there's SO much here!

I've been vegan over half my life. That's longer than most human earthlings (and most NONHUMAN earthlings) have been alive. All that time, I've been making connections for plant-based diets - and doing that through the Vegetarian Resource Center since 1993 (and before that through various strategies and structures.

My observation is that the vegan *movement* is constituted by fellow humans who have awakened to moral sensitivity in our individual observations of the populated world around us, a world that filled plentifully with persons - not only human, but also nonhuman, and that all persons are such that moral consideration is due to all of them. We cannot give that consideration individually; therefore, we must become persons of principle, who resolve our ethical duties towards other persons at a level of principle and self-regulation. I believe in 'ahimsa' or 'dynamic injury' as the proper regulatory principle for human behavior.

I also believe that many practicing vegans have attached nonessentials to being vegan, which often are their political aspirations and their willingness to 'entitle' certain kinds of activity 'over against' things that they wish to reduce with the same energy with which they are holding out their idea of what veganism is. I think that the idea of veganism is independent of that, tht it is defined BY (a) purely plant-based diets without the inclusion of honey or anything from animal or insect and (b) a principle of non-injury that is grounded in one's sense of the moral considerableness of personhood, regardless of how those persons act. One's ability to recognize those claims in any particular case are abetted or abated by the context in which those others are experienced and how they impact us. At the least, we have, I think as a vegan for ethical reasons, a duty to not cause needless harm to others, and those needless harms in mid-2014 would be harms for our clothing, food, shelter, medicinal ingredients, entertainment, etc.

Where there are challenges to living by those principles, we need, I believe as an ethical vegan, to agitate and organize for effective means to realize optimal ways to realize those values in the material world where we find ourselves.